[. . . . ] The answer, of course, is the usual media-inspired flight from reason that overwhelms this country at various times — hype playing on our fears and groupthink to create a sudden story when there really is none. And now with the renewed attack on Donald Rumsfeld we are back to more of the flu-shot hysteria that has been so common in this war. Remember the pseudo-crises of the past four years — the quagmire in week three in Afghanistan or the sandstorm bog-down in Iraq?

Let us not forget either all the Orwellian logic: Clinton's past deleterious military slashes that nevertheless explained the present win in Afghanistan, or his former appeasement of bin Laden that now accounts for the successful doctrine of fighting terror. Or recall the harebrained schemes we should have adopted — the uninvited automatic airlifting of an entire division into the high peaks of Islamic, nuclear Pakistan to cut off the tribal fugitives from Tora Bora? Or have we put out of our memories the brilliant trial balloons of a Taliban coalition government and the all Islamic post-Taliban occupation forces?

So it is with the latest feeding-frenzy over Donald Rumsfeld. His recent spur-of-the-moment — but historically plausible — remarks to the effect that one goes to war with the army one has rather than the army one wishes for angered even conservatives. The demands for his head are to be laughed off from an unserious Maureen Dowd — ranting on spec about the shadowy neocon triad of Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle — but taken seriously from a livid Bill Kristol or Trent Lott. Rumsfeld is, of course, a blunt and proud man, and thus can say things off the cuff that in studied retrospect seem strikingly callous rather than forthright. No doubt he has chewed out officers who deserved better. And perhaps his quip to the scripted, not-so-impromptu question was not his best moment. But his resignation would be a grave mistake for this country at war, for a variety of reasons.

[. . . . ] The blame with this war falls not with Donald Rumsfeld. We are more often the problem — our mercurial mood swings and demands for instant perfection devoid of historical perspective about the tragic nature of god-awful war. Our military has waged two brilliant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. There has been an even more inspired postwar success in Afghanistan where elections were held in a country deemed a hopeless Dark-Age relic. A thousand brave Americans gave their lives in combat to ensure that the most wicked nation in the Middle East might soon be the best, and the odds are that those remarkable dead, not the columnists in New York, will be proven right — no thanks to post-facto harping from thousands of American academics and insiders in chorus with that continent of appeasement Europe. [. . . . ]

CALGARY - Canada's two major pipeline companies are preparing for battle over who gets to play a role in building the US$20-billion Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline.

And industry sources say the rivalry between TransCanada Corp. and Enbridge Inc., both based in Calgary across the street from each other, could land the federal government in court since Ottawa might have to take sides early in the new year.

One source said the competition to build the world's largest pipeline project is likely to become "the hardest-fought" contest that Canadian pipeliners have been involved in.

The Canadian companies are the only two serious pipeline contenders for a piece of the venture, two-thirds of which would run through Canada and is likely to locate a lot of the planning in Calgary. However, Alaska producers BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. may also decide they will build the pipeline themselves.

[. . . . ] "Canada needs to be prepared so that consumers can see this long-term viable secure source of supply, which impacts prices and volatility," Mr. Carruthers said. "All eyes will be on Canada to have a clear and predictable [regulatory] process such that this huge investment can be made."

MONTREAL - Canada will be home to two major aluminum firms after shareholders of Alcan Inc. voted yesterday to spin out its rolled products business into a separate public company, Novelis Inc.

[. . . . ] The spin-off is the centrepiece of Alcan's commitments to regulators when it bought Pechiney Group of France last January for $6-billion. A previous deal, part of a planned three-way merger in 1999, fell through over competition concerns, under former CEO Jacques Bougie.

[. . . . ] With the spin-off, Alcan severs its corporate links to Novelis, and the two will become competitors in some markets. Alcan will keep no stake in Novelis. Two Alcan directors, Ted Newall and Clarence Chandran, will step down to join the Novelis board. Mr. Newall becomes chairman. Also joining the Novelis board is Mr. Bougie. [. . . . ]